PA 

6371 

C^D^Zh 


A 

A 

0 
0 
0 

4  : 

3 : 

1  ; 

2 ; 

0  i 
7  i 

0  ■ 


i  o 

;  o 


:  O 

:0 


ON  THE  AUTHF.NTICITY  OF   THE 


COmiEITTA'SLIOLm.i  PETITIOTTIS   OF 
Q.    CIGEHO 

G.  L.  Hendrickson, 


-\ 


•\ 


'^''M 


V^Ss..... 


v^; 


>  k 


-1^' 


::;^*' 


•■"^?% 


This   book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


JAN   -  ^     iiJ.:i 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 

Los  Angeles 


Form  L  1 


8061  '12  Kvr  ivd        ; 

japuiQ  j 

junouioqin        ] 


r^  /Yi^p^  .<r2.x,,  Ac^tA^ 


^^^/c^a 


■5-DS  AWGrrX"ii;a,  GALIR 


¥ 


[Reprinted  from  the  American  Journal  op  Philology,  Vol.  XIII,  No.  2.]    -  f^ 

III.— ON  THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  COMMENTA- 
RIOLUM  PETITIONIS  OF  QUINTUS  CICERO. 

The  question  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Com.  seems  first  to  have 
been  raised  by  the  late  Adam  Eussner.  After  giving  utterance  at 
various  times  to  doubt  concerning  its  genuineness,  he  finally  set 
forth  his  reasons  in  detail  in  a  dissertation  published  in  1872.^ 
That  the  question  might  be  raised  seems  to  have  already  occurred 
to  Biicheler,'-  on  account  of  the  similarity  of  several  passages  to 
fragments  of  the  oration  in  toga  Candida.  But  while  granting 
that  they  were  more  than  accidental  resemblances,  he  held  that 
they  were  borrowed  from  Quintus  by  his  brother  in  his  speech  of 
a  few  months  later.  Biicheler  also  pointed  out  the  general  simi- 
larity of  the  Com.  to  the  first  letter  ad  Q.  Fratrem,  remarking 
(p.  10)  Marcus  par  pari  quodam  modo  rettulit  missa  ad  fratrem 
.  .  .  epistula  praeclara  I  i.  In  addition  to  the  points  of  resem- 
blance between  the  oration  in  tog.  cand.  and  the  first  letter  ad  Q. 
Fratrem,  Eussner  adduced  a  number  of  parallel  ideas  and  expres- 
sions from  the  oration  pro  Murena,  some  of  which  were  striking, 
while  others  revealed  nothing  more  than  the  chance  occurrence 
of  the  same  word.  Indeed,  I  have  no  doubt  that  by  indiscrimi- 
nate citation  of  accidental  resemblances,  which  would  occur  in 
any  two  documents  treating  of  a  similar  subject,  he  really  dam- 
aged a  pretty  good  case  and  withdrew  attention  from  a  few 
striking  parallels.  Eussner  further  made  many  trivial  objections, 
such  as  the  unseemliness  of  a  younger  and  obscure  man  like 
Quintus  venturing  to  give  advice  to  his  older  brother  on  a  subject 
in  which  the  experience  of  the  adviser  was  as  nothing  to  that  of 
the  advised,  and  others  of  the  same  sort,  which  drew  down  upon 
him  the  wrath  of  R.  Y.  Tyrrell,  in  Hermathena  V  (1877),  p.  40, 
who  seems  to  have  seen  nothing  in  the  dissertation  worthy  of 
consideration.  A  calmer  and  more  sensible  rejoinder  had  already 
been  made  by  R.  Wirz  (Phil.  Anzeiger  V  (1873),  p.  498),  and  he 
seems  to  have  successfully  answered  the  chief  objections  made  by 

'  Commentariolum  petitionis  examinatum  et  emendatum.     Wiirzburg,  1872. 
•'Quinti  Ciceronis  reliquiae  recognovit  F.  Biicheler.     Lips.  1869. 

61512 


■7/ 


COMMENT.  PETIT.  OF  QUINTUS   CICERO.  20I 

Eussner.  Tyrrell  again,  in  the  first  volume  of  his  edition^  of 
Cicero's  letters,  devotes  some  space  to  a  refutation  of  Eussner's 
arguments,  though  they  seem  to  have  convinced  no  one  of  the 
spuriousness  of  the  work.  After  this  the  question  was  not  again 
'  raised  until  the  year  1887,  when  Mommsen,  in  the  long  looked- 
for  third  volume  of  his  Staatsrecht,  expressed  his  belief  that  the 
Com.  is  not  from  the  hand  of  Ouintus  Cicero.  On  page  484  (III), 
where  the  terms  ordo  equesier  and  equites  Romarii  are  under  dis- 
cussion, he  says:  "In  der  Regel  aber  wird  ordo  eqiceste?',  eben 
wie  equites  Romani,  gesetzt  flir  die  Gesammtheit  sowohl  der  das 
Ritterpferd  besitzenden  wie  audi  der  zu  dessen  Besitz  befahigten 
Personen.  .  .  Ein  terminologisch  fester  Gegensatz  zwischen  den 
Staatspferdinhabern  und  den  Expectanten  hat  audi  hier  sich 
nicht  entwickelt."  In  a  note  to  this  passage  he  says  :  "  In  diesem 
allgemeinen  Sinn  wird  diese  Bezeichnung  schon  von  Cicero  ganz 
gewohnlich  verwendet.  Gegensiitzlich  und  also  incorrect  findet 
sie  sich  in  der  in  friiher  Zeit  deni  Q.  Cicero  untergeschobenen 
Bewerbungsschrift ;  hier  werden  die  in  den  centuriae  eqzciiuvt 
stehenden  jungen  Leute  bestimmt  durch  die  atictoritas  des  ordo 
equester,  wahrend  doch  eigentlich  jene  den  ordo  equester  bilden." 
Compare  also  page  497,  n.  3.^  The  passage  quoted  does  not,  of 
course,  contain  all  or  probably  any  considerable  part  of  Momm- 
sen's  reasons  for  considering  the  work  spurious,  but  it  is  the  only 
utterance  so  far  as  I  know  that  he  has  made  on  the  question.  It 
is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  the  point  which  Mommsen  here 
raises  f  but'since  the  authority  of  so  great  a  scholar  has  arrayed 
itself  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Com.,  a  reconsideration  of  the 
question  has  seemed  to  me  desirable. 

The  MSS  are  practically*  unanimous  in  attributing  the  work  to 
Quintus  Cicero,  nor  can  any  important  argument  for  its  spurious- 
ness be  drawn,  I  believe,  from  a  consideration  of  historical  facts 
and  conditions  as  set  forth  in  it." 

^His  answer  is  substantially  the  same  as  his  earlier  paper  on  the  subject  in 
Hermathena. 

^  On  page  1 14,  n.  5,  'Q.  Cicero  de pet.  cons^  is  cited  with  no  intimation  that 
it  is  looked  upon  as  spurious. 

3  Cf.  Willems,  B.  Ph.  W.  661,  1889. 

*The  fact  that  some  of  the  Lagomarsittiani  attribute  it  to  Marcus  Cicero  is, 
of  course,  of  no  significance.     See  Biicheler,  ap.  crit.  p.  25. 

^  In  the  case  of  Q.  Gallius  (spoken  of  Com.  19  as  already  defended  by 
Cicero,  while  Asconius,  p.  78,  says  that  he  defended  him  after  the  oration  in 
tog.  cand.),  it  is  more  probable  that  Asconius  is  in  error,  as  is  assumed  by 
Drumann  V,  374  and  n.  97,  and  maintained  also  by  Biicheler  ad  loc. 


202  A  ME  RICA  N  JO  URN  A  L    OF  PHIL  OLOGY. 

The  striking  contrast,  however,  between  the  upright,  outspoken 
and  rashly  impoUtic  character^  of  Quintus  and  the  compromising,^ 
or  even  dishonorable,  exhortations  of  some  parts  of  the  Com.  has 
been  sufficiently  emphasized  by  Eussner  (p.  20). 

The  dryness  of  the  style  of  the  Com.,  with  its  tedious  iteration 
of  the  same  or  similar  forms  of  transition,  etc.,  is  well  set  forth  and 
illustrated  by  Bucheler,  p.  7.  But  of  all  the  rhetorical  machinery 
which  it  displays,  nothing  is  more  tiresome  or  more  characteristic 
of  the  pedantic  school  rhetoric  than  the  wonderful  fondness  which 
the  author  betrays  for  the  distribiUio  (to  use  his  own  word). 
Indeed,  a  careful  analysis  of  the  work  might  almost  convince  one 
that  it  was  nothing  but  an  exercise  in  that  subject.  He  begins  by 
dividing  the  whole petitio  into  three  subjects  for  Cicero's  medita- 
tion :  novus  sum,  consulatum  peto,  Roma  est.  Let  us  take  for 
example  the  second  member,  conmlaiuvi  peto.  This  is  divided 
in  16  as  follows  :  Petitio  autem  magistratus  divisa  est  in  duarum 
rationum  diligentiam,  quarum  altera  in  amicorum  studiis,  altera 
in  popular!  voluntate  ponenda  est.  Of  this  double  division,  let  us 
again  take  the  second  member, — ratio  papillaris :  (41)  Dicendum 
est  de  ilia  altera  parte  petitionis  quae  in  populari  ratione  versatur. 
Ea  desiderat  nomenclationem,  blanditiam,  assiduitatem,  benigni- 
tatem,  rumorem,  spem  in  republica.  Each  one  of  these  six 
divisions  is  carried  out  in  detail,  with  more  or  less  subdivision 
(e.  g.  rumor,  in  50  and  51 ;  sed — iam. — eiiam — postremo).  That 
this  minuteness  of  division  and  subdivision,  which  might  be 
equally  shown  by  other  examples,  is  a  part  of  the  writer's 
conscious  rhetorical  devices,  is  clear  from  the  following :  (49)  ac 
ne  videar  aberrasse  a  distributione  mea,  qui  haec  in  hac  populari 
parte  petitionis  disputem,  hoc  sequor,  etc.  That  in  so  much 
division  he  sometimes  runs  short  of  material  will  not  cause  sur- 
prise, as  for  example  in  40,  where  the  rationes  et  genera  obtre- 
ctatorvm  et  adversarionim— -who  are  divided  into  three  classes  ! — 
are  to  be  met  and  won  over,  in  the  first  class,  by  spes — studiurn — 
officium;  in  the  second  class  by  beneficium — spes — studiwn,  and 

^  On  the  character  of  Quintus  see  the  letters  ad  Q.  Fratrem  passim  ;  Dru- 
niann  VI,  719  ff.  Cf.  ib.  729.  "  Uas  Meiste  welches  Cicero  an  ihm  tadelt, 
weil  es  nicht  zu  den  Regeln  der  Klugheit  stimmte,  gereicht  seiner  Gesinnung 
zur  Ehre." 

^Com.  5,  together  with  14,  must,  in  case  of  publication,  which  was  mani- 
festly contemplated  {58),  have  put  an  end  to  friendly  relations  between  Cicero 
and  Pompey.  Cf.  also  the  shameless  exhortation  to  mendacity  in  46,  and  to 
injure  the  character  of  his  competitors  in  52. 


COMMENT.  PETIT.    OF   QUINTUS    CICERO.  2O3 

in  the  third  class — eadem  ratione  qua  superior es  !  But  this  is  not 
all.  These  very  resources  by  which  the  raiio?ies  obtrectatorum 
are  to  be  met  are  identical  with  the  means  by  which  his  devoted 
friends  (quos  devinctos  tenet — 20)  are  to  be  further  cultivated, 
viz.  (21)  beneficio,  spe,  adiunctione  animi  ac  voluntate  (=  studio). 
That  Quintus  was  a  prolific  writer  of  dramatic  poetry,  contem- 
plated, at  least,  an  epic  poem  on  the  deeds  of  Caesar,  was  some- 
what of  an  historian,  and  could  write  "  in  a  manner  almost  Aris- 
tophanic,"  we  learn  from  his  brother's  works ;  but  that  he  could 
write  in  the  barren,  mechanical  manner  above  illustrated  it  is 
difficult  to  believe,  especially  in  view  of  the  following  significant 
characterization  of  his  literary  tastes  by  his  brother :  De  Orat.  II 
3.  10  (cited  by  Drumann) :  Nee  vero  te,  carissime  frater  atque 
optime,  rhetoricis  nunc  quibusdam  libris,  quos  hi  as;restis  putas, 
insequor  ut  erudiam — quid  enim  tua  potest  oratione  aut  subtilius 
aut  ornatius  esse  ?  We  find,  therefore,  between  the  style  of  the 
Com.  and  the  literary  activity  and  tastes  of  Quintus,  as  his  brother 
reports  them,  a  contrast  not  less  striking  than  the  contrast  between 
his  character  as  portrayed  to  us  by  other  sources  and  as  revealed 
in  this  work. 

But  such  considerations  can  do  nothing  more  than  arouse  sus- 
picion ;  in  themselves  they  prove  nothing.  There  remain,  how- 
ever, two  points  of  view  from  which  the  subject  may  be  discussed  : 
(i)the  language  of  the  Com.  in  its  relation  to  the  history  of 
Latin  words  and  constructions,  and  (2)  resemblances  to  other 
(later)  works  of  Latin  literature.  The  first  of  these  contains 
material  for  an  interesting  study  in  itself;  but,  as  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  authenticity,  nothing  of  much  significance  can  be 
drawn  from  it.  It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  the  word 
fabula  (54),  in  the  sense  of  "  talk  of  the  town,"  is  met  with  here  for 
the  first  time,  if  we  may  trust  the  dictionaries,  which  cite  Hon'  Ep. 
II.  8  as  the  earliest  example.  Cicero  ns^sfama,  as  in  pro  Caelio 
16.  38,  or  sermo  {sermones')  or  sermunmli.  It  is  also  worthy  of 
note  that  nedum  after  a  positive  sentence  is  first  found  in  Com. 
21  :  Minimis  beneficiis  homines  adducuntur  ut  satis  causae  putent 
esse  ad  studium  sufifragationis,  nedum  i  quibus  saluti*  fuisti  .  .  . 
non  intellegant  etc.  In  Cicero  and  all  other  writers  before  Livy 
nedum  only  follows  a  negative.  Cf.  Draeger,  Syntax  und  Stil  d. 
Tacitus,  p.  80,  and  Schmalz  in  Muller's  Handbuch,  IP,  p.  510. 

i  See  p.  210,  citation  from  Horace  and  note. 


204  AMERICAN  JOURNAL    OF  PHILOLOGY. 

It  remains,  therefore,  for  us  to  consider  the  resemblances 
between  the  Com.  and  other  works  of  Roman  literature.  Biicheler 
has  done  this  for  the  fragments  of  the  oration  in  tog.  cand.,  and 
concludes  that  in  two  places  Cicero  borrowed  consciously  from 
the  recent  letter  of  his  brother — (i)  in  speaking  of  the  incest  of 
Catiline  and  the  Vestal  Fabia/  and  (2)  in  using  the  phrase  duas  in 
re?7i  publicavi  sicas  destrhigere?  The  former,  a  guarded  utterance 
on  a  delicate  subject,  since  Fabia  was  a  sister  of  Terentia  ;  the  latter, 
a  striking  phrase  which  might  easily  have  been  remembered  and 
reproduced  almost  unconsciously.^  Two  other  passages  are  quoted 
by  Biicheler  from  the  oration  in  tog.  cand.  and  compared  with  the 
Com. 

Of  Antonius  we  read : 

Com.    8:    vocem    audivimus  Asc,  p.  74:    in   sua   civitate 

iurantis  se  Romae  iudicio  aequo      cum  peregrino  negavit  se  iudi- 
cum  homine  Graeco  certare  non      cio  aequo  certare  posse, 
posse. 

With  reference  to  the  murder  of  Marius  Gratidianus,  a  near 
relative  of  the  Ciceros,  by  Catiline  : 

Com.  10:  Quid  ego  nunc  di-  Asc,  p.  78:    Populum  vero, 

cam  petere  eum  consulatum,qui  cum  inspectante  populo  collum 
hominem  carissimum  populo  secuithominismaximepopularis 
Romano  Marcum  Marium  in-  quanti  faceret,  ostendit.  P.  80 : 
spectante  populo  Romano  .  .  .  caput  etiam  tum  plenum  animae 
ceciderit,  .  .  .  vivo  stanti  collum  et  spiritus  ad  Syllam  manibus 
gladio  secuerit,  caput  sua  manu  ipse  suis  detulit. 
tulerit.* 

^Ascon.  (Kiessl.  et  Scholl),  p.  82:  cum.ita  vixisti  ut  non  esset  locus  tarn 
sanctus  quo  non  adventus  tuus  etiam  cum  culpa  nulla  subesset,  crimen  afferret 
(from  Com.  10). 

'■^Ascon.,  p.  83,  from  Com.  12.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  phrase  seems  to 
have  occurred  in  both  places  in  the  same  connection,  for  Ascon.  says  1.  1.  dicit 
de  malis  civiius,  and  the  Com.  has  quis  .  .  .  tarn  improbus  fm.y  qui  velit  .  .  .  duas 
in  r.  p.  sicas  destringere. 

•'It  should  be  observed  that  this  is  the  only  remarkable  metaphorical  phrase 
in  the  whole  work.     There  are  but  three  others !     Biicheler,  p.  8. 

*  The  treatment  of  this  case  in  the  Com.  is  peculiar  in  that  no  allusion  is 
made  to  the  intimate  relationship  existing  between  Gratidianus  and  the  Ciceros 
(Asc,  p.  75:  fuerat  hie  Gratidianus  arta  necessitudine  Ciceroni  coniunctus). 
His  name  is  introduced  in  a  rhetorical  style  natural  enough  in  a  public  speech, 
but  really  very  surprising  in  a  letter  to  a  brother.  Indeed,  the  whole  of  this 
part  of  the  Com.  is  written  in  a  strained  oratorical  tone,  which  is  easily 
explained  if  it  had  the  fierce  invective  of  Cicero  for  its  source. 


COMMENT.  PETIT.   OF   QUINTUS   CICERO.  205 

Of  these  two  passages  and  other  similarities  between  the  two 
works,  Biicheler  says:  "et  haec  quidem  aliaque  de  Antonii  prae- 
diis  proscriptis,  de  Catihnae  stupris,  de  Africa  provincia,  de  testium 
dictis  ac  iudicio  etiamsi  pariter  uterque  vel  tractavit  vel  elocutus 
est,  tamen  quod  temporum  rerumque  aut  necessitate  id  factum  est 
aut  opportunitate,  mutuatum  esse  alterum  non  liquet."  The  extent 
of  the  resemblances  in  subject-matter  is  here  indicated  by  Biicheler, 
but  it  can  only  be  fully  realized  by  a  comparison,  sentence  for 
sentence,  of  the  description  of  the  characters  of  Catiline  and 
Antonius  (Com.  8-13)  with  the  fragments  of  the  oration  in  tog. 
cand.  It  will  be  found  that  scarcely  half  a  dozen  statements 
concerning  them  in  the  Com.  are  not  also  made  or  clearly  implied 
in  the  speech.^  The  verbal  resemblances  were  perhaps  exhausted 
by  the  quotations  of  Biicheler,  but  I  would  call  attention  to  the 
following  sentences,  which  betray  a  remarkable  similarity  of 
structure  as  well  as  of  subject-matter  : 

Com.  10:  Quid  ego  nunc  de  Asc,  p.  77  :  Quid  ego  ut  vio- 

Africa,  quid  de   testium    dictis      laveris  provinciam  praedicem  ? 
scribam  ? 

The  oration  for  Murena  is  the  next  work  of  Cicero  in  which 
resemblances  of  thought  and  language  to  the  Com.  appear,  and 
among  many  more  than  doubtful  examples  of  such  likeness  which 
Eussner  quotes,  the  following  are  really  remarkable : 

Com.  56:  atque  haec  ita  nolo  Mur.  43:  primum  accusandi 

te  illis  proponere  ut  videare  ac-  terrores  et  minae  .  .  .  et  populi 
cusationem  meditari,  sed  ut  hoc  opinionem  a  spe  adipiscendi 
terrore  facilius  hoc  ipsum  quod  avertunt  et  amicorum  studia  de- 
agis  consequare.  bilitant.     nescio  quo  pacto  hoc 

fit,  .  .  .  simul  atque  candidatus 
accusationem  meditari  visus  est, 
ut  honorem  desperasse  videatur. 

This  passage  from  the  pro  Murena  has  a  further  significance  not 
noticed  by  Eussner.     For  the  words  populi  opinionem  .  .  .  et  ami- 

^  In  the  enumeration  of  those  whom  Catiline  had  put  to  death  at  the  command 
of  Sulla,  the  names  of  Titinius,  Manlius  (conj.  Biicheler)  and  Tanusius  are 
given  in  Com.  9.  Asconius,  p.  75,  says:  Catilinam  cum  in  Syllanis  partibus 
fuisset,  crudeliter  fecisse.  Nominatim  etiam  postea  Cicero  dicit  quos  occiderit, 
Q.  Caecilium  (Com.  g),  M.  Volumnium,  L.  Tanusium.  The  fact  tliat  tiie  names 
Titinius  and  Manlius  are  not  here  given  by  Asconius,  and  hence  were  not 
probably  in  the  oration  in  tog.  cand.,  points  to  the  independence  of  the  two 
documents,  and  might  therefore  be  used  as  an  argument  for  the  genuineness  of 
the  Com. 


206  AMERICAN  JOURNAL    OF  PHILOLOGY. 

corum  studia  make  just  such  a  division  of  the  constituency  of  a 
candidate  as  is  set  forth  and  carried  out  with  much  detail  in  the 
second  part  of  the  Com.  (i6):  Petitio  autem  magistratus  divisa 
est  in  duarum  rationum  dihgentiam,  quarum  altera  in  amicorum 
studiis,  altera  in  populi  voluntate  ponenda  est. 

Com.  34:  et  quoniam  assecta-  Mur.  44;  petitorem  ego,  prae- 

tionis  mentio  facta  est,  id  quoque  sertim  consulatus,  magna  spe, 
curandum  est,  ut  cotidiana  cu-  magno  animo,  magnis  copiis,  et 
iusque  generis  et  ordinis  et  aeta-  in  forum  et  in  campum  deduci 
tis  utare,  nam  ex  ea  ipsa  copia  volo  .  .  .  praesertim  cum  ...  ex 
coniectura  fieri  poterit  quantum  vultucandidatorumconiecturam 
sis  in  ipso  campo  virium  ac  fa-  faciant,  quantum  quisque  animi 
cultatis  habiturus.  et  facultatis  habere  videatur. 

Of  the  other  resemblances  which  Eussner  cites,  that  between 
Com.  37  and  Mur.  70  is  quite  striking;  while  Com.  21,  Mur.  71 ; 
Com.  28,  Mur.  77  are  worthy  of  note.  Observe  also  the  following 
examples  which  Eussner  seems  to  have  overlooked.  Speaking 
of  the  value  to  a  candidate  of  presence  in  Rome  {assiduitas), 
Cicero  says  : 

Mur.  21:  primum  ista  nostra  Com.  43:  iam  assiduitatis  nul- 

assiduitas  .  .  .  nescis  quantum  lum  est  praeceptum,  verbum 
adferat  hominibusfastidii.  mihi  ipsum  docet  quae  res  sit.  pro- 
qziidem  vehejnenter  expediit po-  dest  guidon  vehementer  nus- 
sitam  in  oculis  esse  gratiam.  quant  discedere} 

And  of  the  morning  saluiatio: 

Mur.   44:    placet    mihi   .  .  .  Com.  35:  in  salutatoribus  qui 

persalutatio,  praesertim  cum  iam  magis  vulgares  sunt  et  hac  con- 
hoc  novo  more  omnes  fere  domos  suetudine  qtiae  nunc  est  piuris"^ 
omnium  concursent.  veniunt. 

There  is,  further,  an  astonishingly  large  number  of  small  verbal 

^  With  this  compare  also  pro  Plancio  67:  (Plancius)  numquam  ex  urbe  afuit 
nisi  sorte,  lege,  necessitate  .  .  .  valuit  assiduitate.  The  oration  pro  Plancio 
presents  a  good  many  interesting  resemblances  to  parts  of  the  Com.,  but  none 
are  so  striking  as  those  from  the  pro  Murena.  E.  g.  67:  (Plancius)  ea  est  usus 
ratione  vitae  qua  minima  invidia  novi  homines  plurimi  sunt  eosdem  honores 
consecuti.  Com.  14:  Iam  in  populo  quam  multi  invidi  sint,  quam  consuetu- 
dine  horum  annorum  ab  hominibus  novis  alienati,  venire  tibi  in  mentem  scio. 

^  The  obscurity  of  this  awkward  paraphrase  has  caused //«m  (preserved  by 
the  Erfurtensis  and  a  few  other  MSS)  to  be  changed  in  almost  all  MSS  and 
editions  \.o plures.  The  reading  of  the  Erfurtensis  is  completely  confirmed  by 
the  above  comparison,  showing  that  qiiae  nunc  est  pluris  [quam  erat  apud  anti- 
ques] =  nova. 


COMMENT.  PETIT.  OF  QUINTUS   CICERO.  207 

resemblances  between  the  Com.  and  the  oration  pro  Murena, 
which  are  of  no  significance  in  attempting  to  prove  that  it  is  one 
of  the  sources  of  the  Com.,  though,  if  that  were  established  by 
other  considerations,  they  might  fairly  be  adduced  as  confirmatory 
evidence.  As  stated  above,  many  of  Eussner's  examples  are  of 
this  kind.     Here  is  one  not  given  by  him  : 

Com.  I :  mihi  .  .  .  dies  ac  no-  Mur.  78  :    consulem  .  .  .  dies 

ctes  de  tua  petitione  cogitanti.        atque  noctes  de  re  publica  cogi- 

tantem. 

Not  only  the  generic  resemblance  of  the  Com.  to  the  first  letter 
of  Marcus  ad  Q.  Fratrem  has  been  pointed  out  by  Biicheler,^  but 
also  the  close  relationship  between  certain  parts  of  the  two,  e.  g.; 

Com.  39;  Non  est  huius  tem-  Ad  Q.  Fr.  I  i.  37  ;  non  susci- 

porisperpetua  ilia  de  hoc  genere  piam  ut  quae  de  iracundia  dici 
disputatio,  quibus  rebus  benivo-  solent  a  doctissimis  hominibus 
lus  et  simulator  diiudicari  possit.      ea  nunc  tibi  exponam. 

Eussner  pointed  out  many  other  cases  of  resemblance,  but  here 
also  he  erred  in  giving  much  which  proves  nothing  except  that 
both  works  are  written  in  Latin.  Several  of  his  examples  are, 
however,  noteworthy,  as,  for  instance,  the  opening  of  the  two 
letters : 

Com.;  Etsi  tibi  omnia  suppe-  Ad  Q.  Fr.  1 1 ;  Etsi'  non  dubi- 

tant  .  .  .  tamen  sum  arbitratus.        tabam  .  .  .  tamen  existimavi. 

Com.  I :  ad  te  perscribere  .  .  .  Ad  Q.  Fr.  I  i.  36 :  at  ea  qui- 

non  ut  aliquid  ex  his  novi  addis-  dem  .  .  .  non  ut  te  instituerem 
ceres.  scripsi. 

Worthy  of  comparison  are  also  Com.  58  and  ad  Q.  Fr.  I  i.  18. 
To  these  I  would  add  : 

Com.  54:  Roma  est  .  .  .  in  Ad  Q.  Fr.  I  i.  22:  Romae  est, 

qua  multae  insidiae,  multa  falla-      ubi   tanta   adrogantia   est,  tarn 
cia,  multa  in  omni  genere  vitia      immoderatalibertas,tam  infinita 
versantur,multorum  adrogantia,      licentia,  etc.'* 
etc. 

Biicheler,  while  thinking  it  possible  that  Ouintus  may  have 
made  use  of  Greek  sources  in  parts  of  the  Com.,  "velut  de  ami- 

^  Introd.,  p.  10  ;  ad  loc,  p.  5i- 

^  The  formula  etsi — tafuen  is  exceedingly  common,  however,  at  the  beginning 
of  letters. 

^The  occurrence  of  adrogantia  in  both  passages  is,  of  course,  of  mucli  less 
significance  than  the  similar  structure  of  the  two  sentences  upon  the  same 
subject. 


208  AMERICAN  JOURNAL    OF  PHILOLOGY. 

corum  atque  adversariorum  generibus,"'  notes  that  there  are  but 
few  traces  of  Greek  in  the  work,  as  would  be  natural  enough  "  cum 
totum  commentariolum  ex  vita  Romana  sumptum  Romanoque 
negotio  aptatum  sit."  The  examples  he  cites  are  the  verse  of 
Epicharmus  in  39 — nervos  atque  artus  esse  sapientiae  non  temere 
credere — and  the  admonition  in  2  to  call  to  mind  often  what 
Demetrius  had  written  de  Demosthenis  studio  et  exercitatione. 
He  suggests,  further,  that  the  disputatio,  quibus  rebus  benivolus 
et  simulator  diiudicari  possit,  alluded  to  in  39,  refers  to  some 
Greek  treatise  on  this  subject,  such  as  the  one  preserved  in  the 
Moralia  of  Plutarch.^  Of  these  examples  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
the  verse  of  Epicharmus  is  given  in  the  original  by  Cicero  in  a 
letter  to  Atticus,^  while  Demetrius'  life*  of  Demosthenes  is  spoken 
of  in  the  de  Divinatione.^  For  the  disputatio  giiibus,  etc.,  it  is 
not  necessary,  of  course,  to  assume  a  Greek  source,  for  this  theme 
was  a  very  common  rhetorical  exercise,  as  appears  from  numerous 
references  to  it  elsewhere.  E.  g.  Cicero,  Topica  85 :  ex  altero 
autem  genere,  quod  erat  bipertitum,  unum  est  de  eodem  et  alio : 
quid  inter  sit  inter  atnicum  et  adse7itatorem,  regem  et  tyrannum. 
Cf.  also  Cic.  Lael.  95,  and  Horace,  A.  P.  425.  To  these  traces  of 
Greek  pointed  out  by  Biicheler  should  be  added  Com.  55 :  Et 
quoniam  in  hoc  vel  maxime  est  vitiosa  civitas,  quod  largitione 
interposita  virtutis  ac  dignitatis  oblivisci  solet,  in  hoc  fac  ut  te  bene 
noris,  id  est  ut  intelligas  eum  esse  te  qui  iudicii  ac  piericuli  metum 
maximum  competitoribus  afferre  possis.  That  te  bene  noris  = 
yvoiQi  (jtavTov  no  ouc,  I  think,  will  doubt,  nor  that  the  triteness  of 
the  saying  is  at  once  indicated  and  apologized  for  by  the  particular 
application  given  it  in  the  words  following.     The  same  phrase  with 

^  P.  7.  In  that  connection  he  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that,  according  to 
ad  Att.  II  3.  3,  Quintus  had  in  his  library  a  work  of  Theophrastus,  TTfpi  ^^Ao- 
Tijuaq. 

^  Plut.  Mor.  49  :  Trwf  hv  tic,  Sianpivoi.  rov  KoXaica  rov  (p'lTiov. 

^  Att.  I  19.  S  :  va^E  nal  fiqtvaa''  aizLGTElv,  apdpa  ravra  rdv  (fipEvuv.  Cf.  also  Att. 
II  20.  I. 

*  So  Biicheler  ad  loc,  but  on  wliat  authority  I  do  not  know.  No  life  of 
Demosthenes  is  contained  in  the  catalogue  of  the  works  of  Demetrius  in  Diog. 
Laert.  V  5.  80.  All  that  is  given  in  the  de  Div.  might  have  been  contained  in 
the  nepl  pi/rupiK?/^  or  the  rrepl  enirr/dEVfidTuv  of  Demetrius. 

^Div.  II96:  Multi  etiam  naturae  vitium  meditatione  atque  exercitatione 
sustulerunt,  ut  Demosthenem  scribit  Phalereus,  cum  RHO  dicere  nequiret, 
exercitatione  fecisse  ut  planissume  diceret.  It  may  not  be  without  significance 
that  the  exercitatio  Demosthenis  is  here  emphasized  as  in  the  Com. 


COMMENT.  PETIT.   OF  QUINTUS   CICERO.  20g 

a  particular  application  similar  to  this  is  found  ad  Q.  Fratrem,  III 
6.  7  ;  Cessator  esse  noli  et  illud  -yvw^t  aeavrov  noli  putare  ad  adro- 
gantiam  minuendam  solum  esse  dictum,  verum  etiam  ut  bona 
nostra  norimus.  In  both  cases  yvSidi.  aeavrov  is  made  the  text  for 
admonition  to  know  one's  own  gifts  and  use  them. 

Somewhat  analogous  to  this  is  the  following.  In  Com.  9  we 
read :  quod  Antonius  umbram  suam  metuit,  hie  (Catilina)  ne 
leges  quidem.  The  phrase  mnbravi  suavi  viehiere  is  natural 
enough,  and  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  it  in  Latin;  yet  that  it 
occurs  elsewhere  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover.  The  only 
thing  like  it  that  I  have  found  is  the  following  in  ad  Att.  XV 
20.  4 :  equidem  etsi  mihi  videtur  iste,  qzii  tivibras  thnet,  ad 
caedem  spectare,  tamen  nisi  explicata  solutione  non  sum  disces- 
surus.  It  would  be  rash  to  affirm  that  there  is  any  connection 
between  these  two  (apparently  isolated)  occurrences  of  similar 
phrases,  but  it  stimulates  one's  curiosity  to  learn  that  iste,  qui 
umbras  timet  is  Antonius  here  also — nephew  of  the  Antonius  of 
the  Com.  and  triumvir.  Were  the  Com.  a  forgery  of  later  date 
than  the  letter  of  Cicero,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  phrase  there  used  of  Mark  Antony  had  been  applied  to  the 
competitor  of  Cicero  of  the  same  name. 

The  same  section  (q)  presents  perhaps  a  similar  case.  The 
author  of  the  Com.  says  of  Catiline  that  he  was  educatus  in  sororis 
stupris :  where  it  is  uncertain  whether  he  charges  Catiline  with 
incest  or  whether  he  refers  to  "stupra  quae  Sergia  fecit  cum  aliis" 
(Biicheler).  The  former  is  the  more  natural  interpretation,  and 
undoubtedly  the  meaning  which  the  author  meant  to  convey,^ 
although  Biicheler,  in  the  absence  of  any  other  evidence  to  this 
charge,  chooses  the  latter.  However  that  may  be,  a  comparison 
with  the  description  of  the  early  career  and  incest  of  Clodius  in 
the  oration  de  haruspicum  response  would  suggest  the  thouoht 
that  we  have  what  is  there  said  of  Clodius  applied  here  to  Catiline. 

Com.  9:  alter  vero,  dii  boni,  De  har.  resp.  42:   hie  vero, 

quo  splendore  est?  ...  natus  .  .  .  pro  diimmortales,  quid  est? 
in  patris  egestate,  educatus  in  .  ,  .  qui  post  patris  mortem  .  ,  . 
sororis  stupris,  corroboratus  in      in  domesticis   est   germanitatis 

^Drumann,  V  387,  n.  66:  "Educatus  in  sororis  stupris;  zweideutig  und 
gesucht  ;  man  kann  erklaren,  der  Brudcr  buhlte  mit  der  Schwester,  aber  auch 
er  war  Zeuge  ihres  unsitllichen  Lebens,  und  wurde  dadurch  verdorben.  Der 
Vf.  will  ihn  anklagen,  nicki  entschuldigen,  und  dachte  daher  ohne  Zweifel  an 
das  Er.«te ;  Andere  und  selbst  Cicero  schweigen  von  dieser  Blutschande." 


2IO  AMERICAN  JOURNAL    OF  PHILOLOGY. 

caede  civium,  cuius  primus  ad  stupris  volutatus;  deinde  robu- 
rem  publicam  aditus  equitibus  stus  .  .  .  se  rei  militari  dedit  .  .  . 
Romanis  occidendis  fuit.  pupillos  necavit  .  .  .  divisores 

macta(vit).  exorta  est . . .  quaes- 

tura.     Atque  hie  ...  P.  Clodio 

gradus  ad    rem    publicam,  hie 

primus  est  aditus  ad  popularem 

iactationem. 

The  resemblances  to  the  Com.  thus  far  cited  have  been  taken 

exclusively  from  works  of  Cicero,  later,  by  intervals  varying  from 

a  few  months  to  ten  years,  than  the  assumed  date  of  the  work. 

In  all  of  these  passages,  the  possibility  that  the  orator  borrowed 

from  the  letter  of  his  brother  or  retained  in  memory  for  a  long 

time  and  so  unconsciously  reproduced  his  words  and  thoughts, 

may  be  admitted,  though  the  probability  of  its  occurring  so  often 

and  at  such  intervals  of  time  is  certainly  to  be  denied.     But  the 

ease  would  manifestly  be  very  different  if  resemblances  to  other 

writers  should  be  shown  ;  though  if  the  work  could  have  furnished 

Cicero  with  so  many  of  his  ideas  and  expressions,  there  is  perhaps 

no  absolute  barrier  (unless  chronological)  to  extending  its  influence 

to  other  writers.     Compare  the  following  passages  : 

Com.  54 :    video  esse  magni  Hor.  Sat.  I  3.  58  ff.:  [Bene 

consilii  atque  artis  in  tot  homi-  sanus  ac  non  incautus  (61)]  hie 
num  cuiusque  modi  vitiis  tantis-  fugit  omnis||  insidias  nullique 
que  versantem  vitare  offensio-  malolatusobdit^  apertum,||  cum 
nem,  vitare  fabulam,  vitare  genus  hoc  inter  vitae  versetur, 
insidias.  ubi  acris||  invidia  atque  vigent 

ubi  crimina. 
Whether  the  resemblance  here  is  sufficient  to  consider  one  the 
source  of  the  other  may  perhaps  be  doubted  ;  but  this  at  least  is 
certain,  that  if  there  is  any  direct  relation,  it  can  only  be  one  of 
imitation  and  paraphrase  of  the  words  of  Horace  on  the  part  of 
the  author  of  the  Com.,  and  that  seems  to  me  very  credible.  The 
other  alternative,  aside  from  the  a  priori  improbability  of  Horace's 
resorting  to  so  barren  a  work  as  the  Com.  for  material,  meets  with 
the  chronological  difficulty  that  we  thereby  assume  imitation  of  a 

^  How  accurately  the  meaning  of  the  words  nullique  vtalo  latus  obdit  apertum 
is  expressed  by  vitare  fabulam  is  well  shown  by  the  Schol.  Cruq.  ad  loc:  nuUi 
dat  sese  irridendum  idque  agit  ne  lingua  malevola  laceretur. 


COMMENT.  PETIT.  OF  QUINTUS   CICERO.  211 

work  which,  even  if  genuine,  was  not,  in  all  probability,  published 

at  the  time  of  the  writing  and  publication  of  this  satire/ 

The  same  chronological  considerations  apply  to  the  relation 

between  the  following  passages  : 

Com,  45 ;  illud  difficilius  (est)  .  .  .  quod  facere  non  possis,  ut  id 
iucunde  negcs  .  .  .  Cum  zd  petittir  quod  .  .  .  promittere  non 
possumus  .  .  .  belle  negandum  est  .  .  .  Audivi  hoc  dicere 
quendam  de  quibusdam  oratoribus  ad  quos  causam  suam 
A^\.w\\'S,'&qX.,  gratiorem  sibi  orationetn  eius  fuisse  qui  negasset, 
quam  illius  qui  recepisset. 

With  this  compare  Publilius  Syrus,'  Sententiae  357  (Ribbeck)  : 

pars  benefici  est  quod petitur  si  belle  neges. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  passage  of  the 
Com.  quoted  presents  an  elaborate  paraphrase  of  the  sententia  of 
Publilius,  in  which  the  original  saying  is  cloaked  at  first  under  the 
form  iucunde  neges,  but  betrayed  a  moment  later  by  belle  negan- 
dum ;  while  it  will  not  escape  notice  that  pars  benefici  of  Publilius  is 
paraphrased  hy gratior em  sibi orationem,  etc.  Here,  then,  the  Com. 
presents  perhaps  the  most  direct  relation  to  other  literature  that  we 
have  observed,  with  the  exception  of  the  oration  in  tog.  cand.,  and 
we  need  not  therefore  hesitate  longer  to  pronounce  the  conclusion 
to  which  the  rest  of  our  investigation  has  led  us,  viz.  that  the  Com. 
is  the  work  of  some  first-century  rhetorician  or  rhetorical  student 
who,  perhaps  in  imitation  of  similar  works,^  wrote  the  Com.  in  the 
name  of  Quintus  Cicero,  and,  modelling  the  general  form  of  his 
composition  on  the  first  letter  ad  Q.  Fratrem  (on  the  duties  of  a 

^According  to  the  usual  view  (e.  g.  Tyrrell),  the  letters  ad  Q.  Fratrem,  to 
which  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  the  Com.  would  have  been  appended 
(Biicheler,  p.  11),  were  published  along  with  the  letters  to  Atticus,  after  the 
death  of  the  latter  (32  B.  C).  Gurlitt  (de  M.  Ciceronis  epistulis,  etc.,  Gott. 
1879)  holds  (p.  47)  that  they  were  a  part  of  a  single  collection,  including  all  the 
extant  letters  except  the  letters  ad  Att.,  and  that  this  original  collection  was 
not  published  before  the  death  of  Anlonius,  but  at  some  time  in  the  decade 
following  Actium.     Hor.  Sat.,  bk.  I,  not  later  than  35  B.  C. 

*  To  be  sure  we  do  not  know  how  long  the  activity  of  Publilius  continued, 
but  Jerome  puts  his  Jioniit  in  the  year  43  B.  C,  and  we  may  well  doubt  whether 
he  was  writing  still  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the  letters  ad  Q.  Fratrem. 

*See  Biicheler, p.  6,  Aul.  Gel.  XIV  7.  2:  (consulatum)  Pompeius  cum  initurus 
foret,  quoniam  per  mililiae  tempora  senatus  habendi  consulendique,  rerum 
expers  urbanarum  fuit,  M.  Varronem,  familiarem  suum  rogavit  ut  commentarium 
faceret  elanyuyiKov — sic  enim  Varro  ipse  appellat — ex  quo  disceret,  quid  facere 
dicereque  deberet,  cum  senatum  consuleret. 


212  AMERICAN  JOURNAL    OF  PHILOLOGY. 

provincial  governor,  etc.),  made  use  especially  of  the  orations  of 
the  period  of  Cicero's  consulship  bearing  upon  the  subject,  viz. 
the  orations  in  tog.  cand.  and  pro  Murena,  and  incidentally  also 
of  other  works  of  Cicero,  as  has  been  pointed  out.  This  will 
explain  adequately  the  historical  correctness  and  faithfulness  of 
his  descriptions,  and  in  a  measure  also  the  purity  of  the  style  and 
vocabulary.  That  he  should  have  betrayed  familiarity  with  a 
well-known  passage  of  Horace  or  a  saying  of  Publilius  is  by  no 
means  surprising,  for,  as  is  well  known,  much  spurious  literature 
owes  its  origm  to  no  intentional  deceit,^  and  no  special  pains  were 
therefore  used  to  avoid  anachronism  in  the  use  of  sources.  How 
early  the  Sententiae  of  Publilius  had  gained  currency  apart  from 
his  plays,  and  how  familiar  they  were  to  the  young  men  of  Rome,  is 
well  shown  by  Seneca  Rhet.  controv.  VH  i8.  8 :  Memini  Moschum, 
cum  loqueretur  de  hoc  genere  sententiarum,  quo  infecta  iam  erant 
adulescentulorum  omnium  ingenia,  queri  de  Publilio,  quasi  ille 
[iam]  hanc  insaniam  introduxisset. 

Concerning  the  date  of  the  composition  of  the  Com.,  we  can 
only  say  that  its  language  and  style  admonish  us  to  put  it  as  early 
as  possible.  If  we  may  assume  that  the  letters  to  Atticus  were 
already  published"  at  the  beginning  of  our  era,  I  should  not  wish 
to  place  the  Com.  very  much  later. 

Madison,  Wis.  GeORGE    L.  HeNDRICKSON. 

^  Blass  in  Midler's  Handbuch,  I,  p.  246. 

^Biicheler,  Rhein.  Mus.  34  (1879),  p.  353,  notes  that  Asconius  (p.  76)  does 
not  make  use  of  a  passage  from  a  letter  to  Atticus  (I  2.  i)  supporting  a  point 
which  he  is  attempting  to  prove,  and  concludes  from  this  that  the  letters  were 
not  then  published  (ca.  55  A.  D.).  The  evidence,  however,  scarcely  seems 
sufficient  for  a  conclusion  so  hard  to  believe"  (cf.  Hofmann,  Ausgew.  Briefe, 
P-  13)- 


vJ  J. 


L«Ji 


9 


SOUTHERN  BRANCH, 

UNIVERSITY  GF  CALIFORNIA, 

LIBRARY, 


L  007  625  561    1 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  431  207    0 


M 


\  ::■■■:. 


.-.•>::."= -v  X 


m 


■":6:  .    -V, 


_\I 


-:^ 


..*^ 


-A' 


S// 


.•*-^ 


,'^* 


.  •i'^. 


"^J*!-^ 


■••■■.-<..: 


'-^-.    .^^ 


v-ir' 


n: 


">    v" 


■  >-•  .^/ 


,.<^ 


